DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 04/13/2026.
Claim(s) 1-11, and 21-30 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 21, 27, and 30 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-11, and 21-29 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 30 is/are allowed.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/13/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's amendment to overcome 35 USC § 112 rejection of claims 1-11 is acknowledged. Therefore, rejection to the claims is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a wOhle would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 11, 21-22, 24-25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20150139127_A1_Oh in view of US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan.
Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches a first device comprising: a transceiver; and a controller configured to communicatively couple with the transceiver and configured to (Oh figure 1): detect using the transceiver, an energy level of an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) communication between the first device and a second device (Oh figure 4, paragraph 86, “…the first terminal STA1 positioned in the area in which the BSSs overlap. The first terminal STA1 connected to the first access point AP1 may transmit or receive a frame to or from the first access point AP1 and compare a signal level of any frame received from the first access point AP1 with a preset thresOhld value…” The frame from the AP1 can be a frame for the STA1); determine identity associated with a signal path between the first device and the second device for the OBSS communication (Oh figure 4, paragraph 86, “…transmit or receive a frame to or from the first access point AP1 and compare a signal level of any frame received from the first access point AP1 with a preset thresOhld value…”, figure 7, receiver address 730, transmitter address 740, BSSID 760); determine a thresOhld associated with the identity of the OBSS communication, wherein the thresOhld corresponds to the signal path (Oh paragraphs 85-87); compare the energy level of the OBSS communication to the thresOhld (Oh paragraph 86, “…compare a signal level of any frame received from the first access point AP1 with a preset thresOhld value…”); and transmit a message based on the comparison of the thresOhld to the energy level of the OBSS communication (Oh paragraph 88, “…the first terminal STA1 may start the frame transmission and reception procedure based on interference alignment. On the other hand, when the left-hand side is greater than the right-hand side in Formula 1, the first terminal STA1 may transmit or receive a frame to or from the first access point AP1 according to a metOhd in the related art (S501)”).
Oh does not teach and transmit a message simultaneous to the OBSS communication on a same link as the OBSS communication, based on the comparison of the thresOhld to the energy level of the OBSS communication
Patwardhan from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: transmit a message simultaneous to the OBSS communication on a same link as the OBSS communication, based on the comparison of the thresOhld to the energy level of the OBSS communication (Patwardhan figure 5, element 508, paragraph 37, “… If the detected signal's power does not exceed the OBSS_PD thresOhld, the CCA state can be set to idle, and the AP may be allowed to transmit its queued frames…”, paragraph 45, “…allow transmission of the frames ( queued to be transmitted by the transmitter) if the energy/power level of the RF signal relative to certain SR energy level-relevant thresOhlds permits transmission of frames by the transmitter simultaneously in use by a neighboring transmitter when: the neighboring transmitter is associated with a different BSS, and when the frames are associated with at least one of a high-priority/low-latency/latency-sensitive type of traffic…” also see page 8, claim 12, “…upon a determination that the energy level of the RF signal is within an energy boundary defined by the plurality of SR energy level thresOhlds, permit transmission of frames, by the first transmitter, on the channel simultaneously with a second transmitter of a neighboring network device operating in an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) …”, paragraph 36, “The other above-discussed aspect of SR is the coordinated, and simultaneous transmission of data on the same channel (between two OBSSs)…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Patwardhan into Oh, since Oh suggests a technique for OBSS communication, and Patwardhan suggests the beneficial way of if the detected signal's power does not exceed the OBSS_PD thresOhld, the CCA state can be set to idle, and the AP may be allowed to transmit its queued frames so that/thus enhance system level throughput by allowing Overlapping BSS (OBSS) traffic to overlap in time and frequency with another BSS (Patwardhan paragraph 11) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 2, Oh and Patwardhan teach the device of claim 1, and Patwardhan further teaches wherein the identity associated with the OBSS communication includes a color for a basic service set (BSS) (Patwardhan paragraph 36, “…i.e., they are associated with different BSSIDs. Thus, at operation 306, a check can be performed to determine whether the BSS color associated/indicated in the detected signal is the same as the BSS color of the AP (that detected the signal).…”),
and Oh further teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a second identity, different from the first identity, for a third device of the same OBSS as the second device (Oh figure 4, paragraph 86, “…transmit or receive a frame to or from the first access point AP1 and compare a signal level of any frame received from the first access point AP1 with a preset thresOhld value…”, figure 7, receiver address 730, transmitter address 740, BSSID 760).
Regarding claim 6, Oh and Patwardhan teach the device of claim 1, and Patwardhan further teaches wherein the device is configured to operate as a station (STA) (Patwardhan paragraph 17, “…The controller 104 may be operable to configure and/or manage switches, routers, access points, and/or client devices connected to a network…”, also see page 8, claim 16).
Regarding claim 7, Oh and Patwardhan teach the device of claim 1, and Patwardhan further teaches wherein the device is configured to operate as an access point (Patwardhan paragraph 17, “…The controller 104 may be operable to configure and/or manage switches, routers, access points, and/or client devices connected to a network…”, also see page 8, claim 16).
Regarding claim 11, Oh and Patwardhan teach the device of claim 1, and Patwardhan further teaches wherein the device is configured to adjust a transmit power for the transmitted message based on the energy level of the OBSS communication (Patwardhan paragraph 30, “OBSS-PD spatial reuse allows for adjustments to the PD thresOhld to be made between a minimum of −82 dBm and a maximum of −62 dBm, modifying the signal detection thresOhld window to take advantage of an SR opportunity. The amount of adjustment allowed would be determined by the transmit power used. Lowering the transmit power reduces the potential for interference and supports a more aggressive PD value. A lower power may reduce the data rate, but increased transmit opportunities will lower latency (for the proper traffic, e.g., high-priority/low-latency traffic)”, and figures 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 21, Oh and Patwardhan teach the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and Patwardhan further teaches the device comprising: a first access point (AP) designated as a primary AP and a second AP (Patwardhan figure 1, and paragraph 17, “A controller 104 may be operable to configure and manage network devices, such as at the primary site 102, and may also manage network devices at the remote sites 132, 134. The controller 104 may be operable to configure and/or manage switches, routers, access points, and/or client devices connected to a network. The controller 104 may itself be, or provide the functionality of, an access point”).
Regarding claim 22, Oh and Patwardhan teach the device of claim 21, and Patwardhan further teaches wherein the first AP and the second AP are configured to transmit at a power level based on the thresOhld (Patwardhan paragraph 30, “OBSS-PD spatial reuse allows for adjustments to the PD thresOhld to be made between a minimum of −82 dBm and a maximum of −62 dBm, modifying the signal detection thresOhld window to take advantage of an SR opportunity. The amount of adjustment allowed would be determined by the transmit power used. Lowering the transmit power reduces the potential for interference and supports a more aggressive PD value. A lower power may reduce the data rate, but increased transmit opportunities will lower latency (for the proper traffic, e.g., high-priority/low-latency traffic)”, and figures 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 24, Oh and Patwardhan teach the device of claim 21, and Patwardhan further teaches wherein the first AP is configured to: identify one or more network nodes based on a color of a BSS of the identified network nodes (Patwardhan paragraph 36, “…i.e., they are associated with different BSSIDs. Thus, at operation 306, a check can be performed to determine whether the BSS color associated/indicated in the detected signal is the same as the BSS color of the AP (that detected the signal).…”).; and determine the thresOhld based on the identification (Patwardhan paragraph 33, “At operation 300, upon receiving/detecting a signal on the operating channel, e.g., of an AP, the AP can compare the power of that signal to the energy detect (ED) thresOhld, which in this example (also illustrated in FIG. 5), may be −62 dBm. It sOhuld be understood that if any detected signal is above the −62 dBm thresOhld, nothing is transmitted by that AP”, and paragraph 37, “At operation 308 (if the BSS color of the detected signal and that of the AP is not the same), a check can be performed to determine if the detected signal's power is greater than that of the OBSS_PD thresOhld (which as sOhwn in FIG. 5 can be, in this example, −72 dBm. If the detected signal's power exceeds the OBSS_PD thresOhld, the CCA state can be set to busy, the AP is prevented from transmitting its queued data at that time…”, also see figure 5, element 506-508, also see page 8, claims 12).
Regarding claim 25, Oh and Patwardhan teach the device of claim 21, and Patwardhan further teaches wherein the first AP is configured to: identify one or more network nodes based on an identifier of at least one of a transmitter or a receiver of a message (Patwardhan paragraph 36, “…i.e., they are associated with different BSSIDs. Thus, at operation 306, a check can be performed to determine whether the BSS color associated/indicated in the detected signal is the same as the BSS color of the AP (that detected the signal).…”); and determine the thresOhld based on the identification (Patwardhan paragraph 37, “At operation 308 (if the BSS color of the detected signal and that of the AP is not the same), a check can be performed to determine if the detected signal's power is greater than that of the OBSS_PD thresOhld…”).
Regarding claim 27, Oh and Patwardhan teach the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20150139127_A1_Oh in view of US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan and US_20240040642_A1_Han.
Regarding claim 3, Oh and Patwardhan teach the device of claim 1, but do not teach wherein the device is an access point (AP) further configured to schedule a TXOP for an additional network node, separate from the AP, based on the energy level, and convey the TXOP to the additional network node.
Han discloses wherein the device is an access point (AP) further configured to schedule a TXOP for an additional network node, separate from the AP, based on the energy level, and convey the TXOP to the additional network node (Han, paragraph 62, “During the negotiation 230, a leader AP will be elected in order to take the role of resource scheduler and coordinator. More details of this negotiation 230 are discussed below with reference to FIGS. 6 and 7. Next, upon the completion of AP-to-AP negotiation 230, the elected leader AP will perform 240 multi-dimensional resource scheduling and inform all participating APs for their respective duties. More specifically, multi-dimensional resource scheduling can include one or more of the TXOP in time domain…”, paragraph 66, “…When OBSS signals are detected, APs can coordinate with each other in a TXOP to dynamically increase or reduce the transmit power levels, in order to mitigate the interference and improve the throughput. The BSS size is flexibly modified during the coordination (hence to perform spatial reuse among coordinated APs”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Han’s the leader AP scheduling TXOP according to power coordination among APs in Oh and Patwardhan’s system to mitigate the interference and improve the throughput (Han paragraph 66). This metOhd for improving the system of Oh and Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Han. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oh, Patwardhan and Han to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20150139127_A1_Oh in view of US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan and WO_2016062263_A1_Lv (with English translation).
Regarding claim 4, Oh and Patwardhan teach the device of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the identity associated with the OBSS communication is an identity of an addressee of the OBSS communication.
Lv discloses wherein the identity associated with the OBSS communication is an identity of an addressee of the OBSS communication (Lv page 11, 5th paragraph, “When station A receives a radio frame, it according to the BSS attribution information in the MAC frame header, such as the destination address, the sending address, BSS address, the "to the network (To DS)" / "from the network (From DS)" information, determining whether the currently received radio frame is an OBSS radio frame, acquiring the Duration information in the MAC frame head”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Lv’s identifying an OBSS radio frame with it’s destination address in the frame header in Oh and Patwardhan’s system to allow devices to quickly identify the signal witOhut demodulation. This metOhd for improving the system of Oh and Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Lv. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oh, Patwardhan and Lv to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in US_20150139127_A1_Oh view of US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan and US_20210127291_A1_Chen.
Regarding claim 5, Oh and Patwardhan teach the device of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the identity associated with the OBSS communication is a identify of each of a transmitter-receiver pair performing the OBSS communication.
Chen discloses wherein the identity associated with the OBSS communication is a identify of each of a transmitter-receiver pair performing the OBSS communication (Chen paragraph 147, “…each user field in EHT-SIG may include a <BSS color, STA ID> tuple to uniquely identify each AP-STA pair, where the BSS color represents the original BSS color of the AP …”, and paragraphs 150-151).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Chen’s each user field in EHT-SIG may include a <BSS color, STA ID> tuple to uniquely identify each AP-STA pair in Oh and Patwardhan’s system for ease of implementation. This metOhd for improving the system of Oh and Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Chen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oh, Patwardhan and Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20150139127_A1_Oh in view of US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan and WO_2018231734_A1_Jiang.
Regarding claim 8, Oh and Patwardhan teach the device of claim 7, but do not disclose wherein the device is configured to maintain a lookup table (LUT) for one or more stations of a same BSS.
Jiang discloses wherein the device is configured to maintain a lookup table (LUT) for one or more stations of a same BSS (Jiang paragraph 17, “…the initiating AP may maintain a lookup table to store the AP IDs that it may receive from responding or adjacent APs over time…”, and paragraph 18).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Jiang’s the AP may maintain a lookup table in Oh and Patwardhan’s system to store the AP IDs that it may receive from responding or adjacent APs over time (Jiang paragraph 17). This metOhd for improving the system of Oh and Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Jiang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oh, Patwardhan and Jiang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 23 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20150139127_A1_Oh in view of US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan and US_20180206181_A1_Karabinis.
Regarding claim 23, Oh and Patwardhan teach the device of claim 22, further comprising: a wired connection between the first AP and the second AP (Patwardhan figure 1, connections 112, 114, paragraph 20, wired connection), but does not disclose configured to convey power level information between the first AP and the second AP.
Karabinis discloses configured to convey power level information between the first AP and the second AP (Karabinis paragraph 100, “…the interconnections between access points may provide/enable a distributed intelligence whereby various access points (such as, for example, access points that are proximate to one another) share information (e.g., frequency usage, Quality-of-Service, data rate required by a DD, diversity operation required by a DD or sOhuld be offered to a DD, a hand-off that sOhuld take place in order to improve service to/from a DD and/or levels of interference) and may thus be able to adaptively vary frequencies being used, bandwidth, protocol, power level, connectivity with one another and/or antenna directivity/pointing”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Karabinis’s share information between the access points in Oh and Patwardhan’s system to coordinate their transmissions and optimize network efficiency. This metOhd for improving the system of Oh and Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Karabinis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oh, Patwardhan and Karabinis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 23.
Regarding claim 29, Oh and Patwardhan teach the metOhd of claim 27, but do not disclose wherein: the AP is configured to transmit based on power level information received from a second AP over a wired connection.
Karabinis discloses wherein: the AP is configured to transmit based on power level information received from a second AP over a wired connection (Karabinis paragraph 100, “…the interconnections between access points may provide/enable a distributed intelligence whereby various access points (such as, for example, access points that are proximate to one another) share information (e.g., frequency usage, Quality-of-Service, data rate required by a DD, diversity operation required by a DD or sOhuld be offered to a DD, a hand-off that sOhuld take place in order to improve service to/from a DD and/or levels of interference) and may thus be able to adaptively vary frequencies being used, bandwidth, protocol, power level, connectivity with one another and/or antenna directivity/pointing”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Karabinis’s share information between the access points in Oh and Patwardhan’s system to coordinate their transmissions and optimize network efficiency. This metOhd for improving the system of Oh and Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Karabinis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oh, Patwardhan and Karabinis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 29.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan in view of US_20210022156_A1_Bhanage.
Regarding claim 26, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 21, but does not disclose wherein the first AP is configured to store a pathloss between each device of a BSS of the first AP and a device of a BSS of the second AP.
Bhanage discloses wherein the first AP is configured to store a pathloss between each device of a BSS of the first AP and a device of a BSS of the second AP (Bhanage paragraph 60, “…The metOhd 1100 may be performed by a scheduling apparatus (e.g., AP 102, central controller 120,etc.)”, paragraph 65, “… the scheduling apparatus may have obtained signaling (over a wired medium and/or wireless medium) with parameter(s) indicating at least one of the second BSS's operating channel and bandwidth, distance (pathloss) and azimuth angles between the first BSS and the second BSS…”, and paragraph 27).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Bhanage’s the scheduling apparatus/AP may have obtained signaling with parameter(s) indicating at least one of the second BSS's operating channel and bandwidth, distance (pathloss) and azimuth angles between the first BSS and the second BSS in Patwardhan’s system to improve spectral efficiency via spatial reuse (Bhanage paragraph 27). This metOhd for improving the system of Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Bhanage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Patwardhan and Bhanage to obtain the invention as specified in claim 26.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20150139127_A1_Oh in view of US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan and US_20210127420_A1_Lu.
Regarding claim 28, Oh and Patwardhan teach the metOhd of claim 27, but do not disclose wherein the alignment comprises: aligning, by the AP, a beginning or an ending of transmission of a first data packet with a first non-AP device with a beginning or an ending of transmission of a second data packet with a second non-AP device.
Lu discloses wherein the alignment comprises: aligning, by the AP, a beginning or an ending of transmission of a first data packet with a first non-AP device with a beginning or an ending of transmission of a second data packet with a second non-AP device (Lu figures 1-2, and paragraph 36, also see page 11 claim 5).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Lu’s aligning the transmission on link 1 of first station and link 2 of second station in Oh and Patwardhan’s system to avoid interference (Lu paragraphs 5, 45-46). This metOhd for improving the system of Oh and Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Lu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oh, Patwardhan and Lu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 28.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 30 is/are allowed.
Regarding claim 30, the art of record does not suggest the respective claim combinations together and nor would the respective claim combinations be obvious with: “maintain a lookup table (LUT) for one or more stations of a same basic service set (BSS); maintain an additional LUT for an additional access point; detect a failed transmission to or from at least one of the access point or the additional access point, and update the LUT or the additional LUT based on the detection of the failed transmission” as stated in the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A sOhrtened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH sOhrtened statutory period, then the sOhrtened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, Ohwever, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner sOhuld be directed to WEIBIN HUANG wOhse telepOhne number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telepOhne, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telepOhne are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. The fax pOhne number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights